What Really Went Wrong with Mark Penn

Mark Penn, from Time Magazine

Yes, I know they’re saying that Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, left the campaign because of his mishandling of talks about a Colombian trade agreement.

…Penn had met with the Colombian Ambassador to the United States — in his capacity as the head of public relations firm Burson-Marsteller — in order to help the Colombian government push for congressional approval of a free trade agreement with the United States.

The problem? Senator Clinton — the candidate for whom Penn was also working — opposes that trade agreement.

Later on Friday, Penn described the meeting as “an error in judgment.” On Saturday, the Colombian government cancelled its contract with Penn’s firm.

Colombia, the story goes, was so insulted by Penn’s characterization of their meetings that they fired him. With Clinton’s, that makes two firings in as many days. Bad weekend.

But there’s more to Penn’s banishment from the Clinton campaign than that. For the benefit of those not paying attention, let’s just say Clinton hasn’t been doing so well lately, and she seems to blame a lot of her trouble on Penn. She’s probably right.

“Originally positioning her as the establishment and inevitable candidate in a year of change was a big mistake,” said veteran political consultant Bob Shrum, who ran John Kerry’s ill-fated presidential bid four years ago. “At the beginning of the campaign, Penn had a theory of the case that was wrong. They were rerunning the 1996 re-election campaign. And Hillary, who could be the first female president of the United States, could have and should have run as a candidate of change.”

Just about everyone agrees that that sense of entitlement within the Clinton campaign was a major setback early on, as was the lack of a game plan beyond Super Tuesday…

Politico: “Your polls tend to support your strategy, and your strategy tends to support your polls, because you are the same guy. Every now and then it’s good for someone to say, ‘I don’t care what the polls say; this doesn’t feel right, and we should have a different strategy.'”

Clinton loyalist Leon Panetta…called Mr. Penn a “pollster from the past.” The former White House chief of staff complained about the campaign’s lack of planning. “I never considered [Mr. Penn] someone who would run a national campaign for the presidency,” he said. “[Mr. Penn] comes from an old school, like Karl Rove. It’s all about dividing people into smaller groups rather than taking the broader approach.”

…Another factor that helped knock some of the shine off Mr. Penn was the Sybil-like personality changes of the campaign and Ms. Clinton, who, unlike Mr. Obama, didn’t seem to be able to choose what she wanted her brand to represent. Throughout the course of the campaign, she has gone from the tough realist to the emotional mother to an Obama wannabe to finally a classic aggressive politician looking for her opponent’s weaknesses. There’s been no consistency, which is as bad for a political brand as it is for a corporate one.

…Politico’s [Roger] Simon said the Clinton campaign will serve as a case study to be reviewed by future candidates, especially those thinking about making their chief strategist and chief pollster the same person. “The problem is your polls tend to support your strategy, and your strategy tends to support your polls, because you are the same guy,” Mr. Simon said. “Every now and then in a campaign, it’s good for someone to say, ‘I don’t care what the polls say; this doesn’t feel right, and we should have a different strategy.'”

But don’t feel too bad for Penn. While people probably won’t rush to buy his book, Microtrends, The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes, he’s still doing as well as most CEOs whose management is weak.

His polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, a part of Burson-Marsteller, has received more than $10 million in fees for its work on the [Clinton] campaign.

Connect: